Commercial; when did it become a dirty word? why?

[clifford_thornton]

That's show biz, emphasis on the BIZ.

I'm not in show business. Not interested at all.

Well then, HAVE I got a DEAL for YOU!!!

replyto: 809u07179xclg@citybank.org

lol

[7/4]

That's show biz, emphasis on the BIZ.

I'm not in show business. Not interested at all.

Well then, HAVE I got a DEAL for YOU!!!

replyto: 809u07179xclg@citybank.org

lol

[GARussell]

My idea of commercial jazz is that which is made to appeal to people who don't like jazz.

A Love Supreme is not considered commercial because only jazz fans like it. When George Shearing joined Capitol (and I guess before on MGM), he began to appeal to the mainstream public, few of whom have ever spent much money on modern jazz, so his quintet's music was considered commerical.

[JSngry]

A Love Supreme ...only jazz fans like it.

Not at all true.

[Guest Bill Barton]

To me the word has two connotations.

There is music that is "commercial" because it is successful (i.e. sells). Whether it is "good" or "bad" is beside the point and of course a personal judgment call.

And then there is music that is made strictly with the goal of raking in bundles of dough. "Manufactured" pop groups would fall into this category. And the proverbial "sell out" album by a jazz musician would too. Of course, it's totally a subjective call what is and what is not a "sell out."

[MoGrubb]

So where does Trane's A LOVE SUPREME fall? It's sold, and is selling, a bunch of copies, as is/did Miles' KIND OF BLUE.

Commercial implies intent moreso than sales success; did you record something to express yourself as an artist or to make bread, to fulfill something already in demand?

We're definitely talkin two commercials here. e.g. Anything that CHICAGO recorded, whether it was popular and sold or not, was commercial.

Really? You think that Chicago formed because they saw a huge untapped market for jazz and classical influenced pop groups featuring a horn section?

Isn't it possible for a pop group to make music for extra-commerical reasons? Obviously the Beatles and the Stones made tons of money. Do we doubt their motives as well? How about the Grateful Dead? And what about artists who continue to tour and produce albums for years after they've made more than enough money to live on for the rest of their lives? Are they still only in it for the money?

Giving them the benefit of a doubt, Chicago did what they did because they liked it, pop art. And Yes, I think that their primary reason for forming the group was to make money, commercial. Some people just like to play, sing, pick, bang, blow horns, and don't particularly care what they're producing. I, for one, used to love blowing my horn for commercial/jingles/ads.

re: The Stones, Beatles, Dead----All pop(ular) art stuff. And, after they made it big, they continued to perform and make big money because there was/is big money for others in promotion and sales. I don't doubt anybody's motives.

Then there always ego....

Edited October 12, 2007 by MoGrubb

[Larry Kart]

An excerpt from my book that may or may not clarify things a bit. The main thing is the quote from the now-deceased Bruce Turner (a lovely player):

...At one time, so the argument goes, jazz musicians were content to think of themselves as entertainers, not self-conscious artists. If the practitioner of modern jazz wants to please himself and his peers first and the audience second, if at all, he must endure the consequences of this unrealistic, willful act.

The problem with that argument, though, as British saxophonist Bruce Turner says in his whimsically titled autobiography Hot Air, Cool Music, “is that scarcely any jazz musicians are able to recognize this picture of themselves. There are some jazzmen who are great entertainers. Louis Armstrong, Fats Waller, and Lionel Hampton come immediately to mind. But they are the exception, not the rule. For the most part those of us who play jazz for a living do not know any way of entertaining an audience other than by making the best music we are capable of…. The ‘jazz is entertainment’ theory is only about money, when you boil it down. Jazz finds itself sponsored by the entertainment industry, and in return the latter feels entitled to demand its pound of flesh. Fair enough, but why in heaven's name confuse the issue? The distinction between what is done for love and what is done for quick cash is an obvious one.”

Edited October 12, 2007 by Larry Kart

[MoGrubb]

....Jazz finds itself sponsored by the entertainment industry, and in return the latter feels entitled to demand its pound of flesh. Fair enough, but why in heaven's name confuse the issue? The distinction between what is done for love and what is done for quick cash is an obvious one.”

Agreed, some people have a tendency to go into denial, get over-sensitive, or defensive about it. Call it like it is. Scum is scum, not that there's anything wrong with that.

Edited October 12, 2007 by MoGrubb

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

An excerpt from my book that may or may not clarify things a bit. The main thing is the quote from the now-deceased Bruce Turner (a lovely player):

...At one time, so the argument goes, jazz musicians were content to think of themselves as entertainers, not self-conscious artists. If the practitioner of modern jazz wants to please himself and his peers first and the audience second, if at all, he must endure the consequences of this unrealistic, willful act.

The problem with that argument, though, as British saxophonist Bruce Turner says in his whimsically titled autobiography Hot Air, Cool Music, “is that scarcely any jazz musicians are able to recognize this picture of themselves. There are some jazzmen who are great entertainers. Louis Armstrong, Fats Waller, and Lionel Hampton come immediately to mind. But they are the exception, not the rule. For the most part those of us who play jazz for a living do not know any way of entertaining an audience other than by making the best music we are capable of…. The ‘jazz is entertainment’ theory is only about money, when you boil it down. Jazz finds itself sponsored by the entertainment industry, and in return the latter feels entitled to demand its pound of flesh. Fair enough, but why in heaven's name confuse the issue? The distinction between what is done for love and what is done for quick cash is an obvious one.”

I suspect Bruce Turner's judgement, though it's an interesting point. I suspect it because I think he may never have seen Dr Lonnie Smith, Groove Holmes, Mel Sparks, Charles Earland (I could go on). The British critical view of Soul Jazz in the sixties and seventies was even more disparaging than the American. It was about 1979/80 before Houston Person appeared in Britain; and he was about the first Soul Jazz musician to get a gig at Ronnie's. Until then (and also since) Ronnie's was FULL of musicians whose idea of entertainment was to play as well as they knew how. (OK, I know Illinois Jacquet played there - I'm making a general point.) I believe there are far more great entertainers among jazz musicians than Bruce Turner gives credit for.

But the real problem with this quote is that it deals only with the extremes. "The distinction between what is done for love and what is done for quick cash is an obvious one." Yes, it's obvious at the extremes. But most music (and we're not talking about jazz specifically here) is somewhere between the extremes and judgements of that nature are well out of order in most cases, it seems to me.

MG

[MoGrubb]

........But the real problem with this quote is that it deals only with the extremes. "The distinction between what is done for love and what is done for quick cash is an obvious one." Yes, it's obvious at the extremes. But most music (and we're not talking about jazz specifically here) is somewhere between the extremes and judgements of that nature are well out of order in most cases, it seems to me.

MG

Which brings up another point (in my mind at least) that, eventhough many pop players and performers may be inferior or less of a musician than jazzers and classical players, it doesn't necessarily mean that their goals are ignoble and/or commercial. However, when you have a public that refers to such types as "good/great musicians," it can breed animosity (and depression) from really good players, that have to compete with the aforementioned for work and the limelight.

There's a different standard among the "poppers." . In "olden" times the standard and goal was to strive for good musicianship, for the public's acknowledgment of it at least. Now, good musicianship is irrelevant, probably isn't even recognized by pop culture. Granted it takes more than musicianship to make music, but it shouldn't be ignored and/or not used to make pop music, IMHO. This has brought about the advent of the pseudo musician, singer, performer, pseudo "star." He/they no longer have to confine their efforts to the home, now he can go public, on stage and draw all the attention and money. Amateurs and hams rule pop and the general public now.

Edited October 13, 2007 by MoGrubb

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

There's a different standard among the "poppers." . In "olden" times the standard and goal was to strive for good musicianship, for the public's acknowledgment of it at least. Now, good musicianship is irrelevant, probably isn't even recognized by pop culture. Granted it takes more than musicianship to make music, but it shouldn't be ignored and/or not used to make pop music, IMHO. This has brought about the advent of the pseudo musician, singer, performer, pseudo "star." He/they no longer have to confine their efforts to the home, now he can go public, on stage and draw all the attention and money. Amateurs and hams rule pop and the general public now.

I think that's very true. But it's a fairly recent thing, I think. I suspect it started in the late fifties. In Britain, there was a bunch of young singers - Terry Dene, Dickie Pride, Marty Wilde, Billy Fury - who were definitely created by their manager (they all had the same manager; I forget his name). In America, there was another bunch - Frankie Avalon, Fabian, Bobby Rydell etc - who all had some connection with the DJ on American Bandstand. They were all pretty talentless, but (at least moderately) good looking.

Before that, you had the Doo Wop thing, where someone would discover a bunch of black kids practising harmony singing on the street corners, find them a song and off they'd go for one or two hits (a few did rather better than that). But these guys weren't basically untalented - they could sing. They just didn't have what it took to support a career as entertainers.

Going back to the Bruce Turner quote about jazz musicians not being good entertainers, I suspect it's rather harder to be a good (or great) entertainer than is sometimes imagined. As I recall, one of the innovative things Motown did in the sixties was to send their artists to a finishing school, to teach them how to present themselves on stage, to dance, dress and so on. You wouldn't think people like Diana Ross, Smokey Robinson, Marvin Gaye etc needed to be taught stuff like that, but they did.

Perhaps if there'd been a presentation school for jazz musicians...

MG

[JSngry]

I suspect it's rather harder to be a good (or great) entertainer than is sometimes imagined.

In my experience, it's something that one either comes by naturally or doesn't. That's not to say that it's a skill that can't be honed/polished/whathaveyou, just that it requires a certain...level of comfort with one's self in front of strangers that not everybody has.

Now sure, you got those who learn to fake it, but those usually end up being the ones who gove "entertaining" a bad rap, because they have an "act" that they do, not because they feel it, but because they have to do it to get a gig. And inevitably, that kind of phoniness turns putrid to the more discriminating observer.

But hell, I see absolutely nothing wrong with being a relatively pleasant individual, nor do I see anything wrong with presenting one's self as same when performing. And if one is not a particularly pleasant individual, one can still say a few curmodgenly words here and there and pass it off as a "persona". People eat that shit up, especially "jazz fans", who love to think of themselves as a tough, cynical breed. If only they knew...

Ultimately, though, it's nice to be important, but it's more important to be more important.

[Christiern]

As I recall, one of the innovative things Motown did in the sixties was to send their artists to a finishing school, to teach them how to present themselves on stage, to dance, dress and so on. You wouldn't think people like Diana Ross, Smokey Robinson, Marvin Gaye etc needed to be taught stuff like that, but they did.

Perhaps if there'd been a presentation school for jazz musicians...

MG

I think that had more to do with teaching them to project an image Berry Gordy had in mind. Catering to white middle/upper-class audiences, Gordy wanted his acts to be polished and 1960s Vegas ready. Sometimes that turned out to be a miscalculation--I recall hearing the Supremes at San Francisco's Fairmont Hotel where the audience was 95% white and 100% bored by a repertoire of decidedly white songs, including "Swanee River." Towards the end of the set, the Supremes got down to Motown fare and it woke the audience up. They had not come to hear Stephen Foster.

[JSngry]

And Marvin Gaye resolutely resisted the Gordy Charm School.

[JSngry]

They had not come to hear Stephen Foster.

Does anybody come to hear Stephen Foster?

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

As I recall, one of the innovative things Motown did in the sixties was to send their artists to a finishing school, to teach them how to present themselves on stage, to dance, dress and so on. You wouldn't think people like Diana Ross, Smokey Robinson, Marvin Gaye etc needed to be taught stuff like that, but they did.

Perhaps if there'd been a presentation school for jazz musicians...

MG

I think that had more to do with teaching them to project an image Berry Gordy had in mind. Catering to white middle/upper-class audiences, Gordy wanted his acts to be polished and 1960s Vegas ready. Sometimes that turned out to be a miscalculation--I recall hearing the Supremes at San Francisco's Fairmont Hotel where the audience was 95% white and 100% bored by a repertoire of decidedly white songs, including "Swanee River." Towards the end of the set, the Supremes got down to Motown fare and it woke the audience up. They had not come to hear Stephen Foster.

My reading of Motown histories indicates that came in the late 60s. During the early 60s, Motown's accent was on the kids and the "school" was geared that way.

MG

[danasgoodstuff]

negative attitudes towards commerce far predate the advent of recorded music, they are about as deaply embedded in our collective consciousness as anything in western culture (present in classical Greek/Roman times, compounded by the otherworldliness of the middle ages and the grubby grasping of the industrial revolution). But commerce is, of course, absolutely necessary, hence the deep uneasy ambivilence expressed above. It does take on a particular cast as regards jazz, given its complex relation to more overtly commercial musics. The mere fact that everybodies got to eat doesn't negate the choices one has to as to how, but speculation about ultimately unknowable motives doesn't replace hearing what's in front of your ears. Chicago may have had the purest of motives and Chuck Berry may wel have (as he claimed) done everything for $, but that doesn't make me like the former any better or the latter any less, nor are my standards any different for "jazz" despite my recognition that anti-commercialism was always implicit in the idea of jazz, explicit in most modern jazz. And no, I'm not a formalist nor much of a muso, music is 'about something' (a lot of things, a lot of different ways) - so what am I trying to say here? I think it's that this is knot that just won't come untied for me, your millage may vary but eventually you too will run outta gas...

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

negative attitudes towards commerce far predate the advent of recorded music, they are about as deaply embedded in our collective consciousness as anything in western culture (present in classical Greek/Roman times, compounded by the otherworldliness of the middle ages and the grubby grasping of the industrial revolution). But commerce is, of course, absolutely necessary, hence the deep uneasy ambivilence expressed above. It does take on a particular cast as regards jazz, given its complex relation to more overtly commercial musics. The mere fact that everybodies got to eat doesn't negate the choices one has to as to how, but speculation about ultimately unknowable motives doesn't replace hearing what's in front of your ears. Chicago may have had the purest of motives and Chuck Berry may wel have (as he claimed) done everything for $, but that doesn't make me like the former any better or the latter any less, nor are my standards any different for "jazz" despite my recognition that anti-commercialism was always implicit in the idea of jazz, explicit in most modern jazz. And no, I'm not a formalist nor much of a muso, music is 'about something' (a lot of things, a lot of different ways) - so what am I trying to say here? I think it's that this is knot that just won't come untied for me, your millage may vary but eventually you too will run outta gas...

Thank you - that's kind of the answer I wanted. I would have guessed the 19th Century myself - the Art for Art's sake movement. But I bow to, and am grateful for, greater knowledge.

Back in Greek days (and ancient Egypt?) would this issue have been related to class?

MG

[BruceH]

When did "commercial" become a dirty word? When they smeared garbage and dog-poop all over it. Pee-yoo!! Disgusting.